Other Resources

electromagnetic field (EMF),
electromagnetic radiation (EMR)

All known cancer-inducing agents — including
radiation, certain chemicals and a few viruses — act by breaking chemical
bonds, producing mutant strands of DNA. Not until the ultraviolet region
of the electromagnetic spectrum is reached, beyond visible light, beyond
infrared and far, far beyond microwaves, do photons have sufficient energy
to break chemical bonds. Microwave photons heat tissue, but they do not
come close to the energy needed to break chemical bonds, no matter how
intense the radiation. --Dr. Robert L. Park of the American
Physical Society (New
York Times Oct. 1, 2002)

Ionizing radiation can break the
electron bonds that hold molecules like DNA together and is
carcinogenic....The photon energy of cellphone EMF is more than 10 million
times weaker than the lowest energy ionizing radiation.--Lorne
Trottier

Unless one is willing to discard the
concept of photons, Planck's law, and the interaction between photons and
atoms—and thus the entire body of
quantum physics—it is simply not possible for the photons associated with
either a power line or a cell phone to cause cancer."--
S. T. Lakshmikumar

An electromagnetic field (also called
electromagnetic radiation) is a region in space through which energy
passes that has been created by electrically charged particles. EMFs are
produced by such things as power lines, electric appliances, radio waves,
and microwaves.

Many people fear that EMFs cause cancer; however, a causal connection between EMFs and
cancer has not been established. The
National Research Council (NRC)
spent more than three years reviewing more than 500 scientific studies that had been
conducted over a 20-year period and found "no conclusive and consistent
evidence" that electromagnetic fields harm humans. The chairman of the NRC panel,
neurobiologist Dr. Charles F. Stevens, said that "Research has not shown in any
convincing way that electromagnetic fields common in homes can cause health problems, and
extensive laboratory tests have not shown that EMFs can damage the cell in a way that is
harmful to human health."*

Despite
the overwhelming scientific evidence against the view that our
electronic gadgets are causing our headaches, nausea,
Alzheimer's, or stress, there are organized movements in several
countries to enlighten the world about the dangers of EMR. In
the USA, there is The EMR
Policy Institute. There is also something called Bioinitiative 2012, a website registered to Cindy Sage
of Sage Associates, an environmental consulting firm located in
Santa Barbara, California. The Bioinitiative Report is
collecting signatures for a petition that reads:

We, the undersigned, find that current
government limits do not protect the public from adverse
health effects from electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emanating
from devices such as power lines, cell phones and wireless
internet devices and their associated antenna sites, TV and FM
broadcast towers and radar.

Most of the existing limits on this form of
radiation are 1 to 4 thousand times too lenient to prudently
protect humans from adverse health effects ranging from
Alzheimer's and other neurodegenerative diseases, reproduction
problems, sleep reduction, learning, memory, slowed ability of
the body to repair damage, interference with immune function,
cancer and electrohypersensitivity.

The petition
concludes by claiming there is scientific evidence to support
their view that many non-specific symptoms are attributable to
EMFs. It then lists what, in the opinion of Sage and her
associates, the limits of exposure should be. According to Sage, the "most rapidly growing environmental
pollutant in today's environment is probably electromagnetic
fields (EMF) including radiofrequency radiation." She makes many
other scary claims that are not consistent with the
preponderance of the evidence, including the claim that "cell
phone exposures can be intense enough to cause DNA damage."
Maybe she saw the video on YouTube of some characters
appearing to pop popcorn with their cell phones. (If you're
wondering how it's done click here.)

In the
UK, Powerwatch has
been around since 1988 to sell EMF-measuring devices and to
promote the idea that EMFs are hazardous to our health. In
France, there are several communities that have repeatedly
protested against mobile phone masts and campaigned against
wireless internet.*A group of self-identified electro-sensitives
have taken up residence in the Drôme valley in southern France
to escape the ubiquitous radio waves of the cities. They claim
their trailer park (caravan park) is an electromagnetic "refuge
zone." They wrap their trailers (caravans) in metal to shield
them from deadly EMFs. The women wear metal-fiber shawls and
aluminum capes. There is, of course, no evidence that metal
shields (or tinfoil caps, for that matter) provide protection
against any particular physical or psychological ailments caused
by cell phones or power lines and the like.

All
electromagnetic radiation comes from
photons. The energy of a
photon depends on its frequency. "Roughly one million photons in a power
line together have the same energy as a single photon in a microwave oven,
and a thousand microwave photons have the energy equal to one photon of
visible light" (Lakshmikumar 2009). Ionizing radiation is known to cause
health effects; "it can break the electron bonds that hold molecules like
DNA together" (Trottier 2009). "The photon energy of a cell phone EMF is
more than 10 million times weaker than the lowest energy ionizing
radiation" (Trottier 2009). Thus, the likelihood that our cell phones,
microwave ovens, computers, and other electronic devices are carcinogenic
is miniscule. Nevertheless, it is impossible to prove that no
study will ever find a significant correlation between EMFs and cancer or
any other disease or disorder. No product can be shown to be absolutely
safe for everybody. For example, a
2004 British
Medical Journal article claimed to have found an inexplicable
increase in leukemia in children living near power lines in England and
Wales. The researchers wrote: "There is no accepted biological mechanism
to explain the epidemiological results; indeed, the relation may be due to
chance or confounding." On the other hand, a
2003 study of women on Long Island found no causal connection between
living near power lines and developing breast cancer. A single study does
not prove there is or there isn't a causal link between EMFs and cancer.
We have to look at what is indicated by the preponderance of the evidence
from all the studies.

There is also a strong contingent of folks
hell-bent on proving this link, so it is likely that studies will continue
to be done that support a contrary viewpoint. For example, a research team
in Sweden found an increased risk for brain tumors in people who used
cellular or cordless phones (2006).
The study was a small one and assessed exposure by self-administered
questionnaires. On the other hand, a large Danish study (420,000 mobile
phone users) found neither long nor short-term mobile phone use to be
associated with an increased risk of cancer (2006).
The Danish study did not use the memories of the subjects to assess
exposure; they analyzed data from mobile phone company records. Another
small Swedish study found no increased risk of acoustic neuroma related to
short-term mobile phone use (2004).
The researchers thought that their data suggest an increased risk of
acoustic neuroma associated with mobile phone use of at least 10 years
duration. They don't say how they measured exposure, but they note
that "detailed information about mobile phone use and other environmental
exposures was collected." Other studies on laboratory animals have found
effects from microwave exposure (2003;
2006;
2007). Some studies have collected data suggestive of possible harmful
effects from cell phone microwave exposure, but they are too small to have
ruled out chance or other causal agents (2006)
or they have not been tested on in vivo cells (2004;
2006a;
2006b).

Recently, the alarm has been raised by some who fear that damage might be done to our brains from being exposed to
Wi-Fi. Despite the fact
that modulated frequencies bringing radio and television transmissions
into our homes are stronger and more pervasive than the radio waves
used by wireless networks, there has been little call to reduce radio or
TV transmission. (The power levels for Wi-Fi are lower than that for cell
phones, by the way. Photons of visible light carry more energy than
microwaves and bombard us much more frequently than microwaves from such
things as cell phones or wireless networks. Microwave
ovens are "tuned for optimal water absorption, which happens to be about
2.45 gigahertz."*
Despite numerous scare stories
about the effects of microwaved water and food on people, animals, and
plants, you can't do anything to food or water with a microwave oven that
you couldn't also do in a conventional oven with infrared waves,*
assuming you use the ovens as intended. Microwaved food is safe and poses
no health hazard.)

What compelling scientific evidence he has for making such claims is
not known.

Another school banned Wi-Fi after a classics teacher complained that it
was making him physically ill. The teacher said that after Wi-Fi was in
place:

I felt a steadily widening range of unpleasant effects whenever I was
in the classroom. First came a thick headache, then pains throughout the
body, sudden flushes, pressure behind the eyes, sudden skin pains and
burning sensations, along with bouts of nausea. Over the weekend, away
from the classroom, I felt completely normal.*

That the teacher's symptoms were caused by Wi-Fi is, however, pure
speculation and unlikely. Wi-Fi goes through ordinary walls up to about
300 m, so the teacher should have felt symptoms long before entering and
long after leaving the classroom. There is no compelling scientific evidence that these kinds
of symptoms are caused by exposure to Wi-Fi. There have been a number of
studies that have tried to establish that some people are hypersensitive to EMFs. Ben Goldacre of Bad Science writes:

There have been 31 studies looking at whether people who report being
hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields can detect their presence, or
whether their symptoms are worsened by them. A typical experiment would
involve a mobile phone hidden in a bag, for example, with each subject
reporting their symptoms, not knowing if the phone was on or off.

Thirty-one is a good number of studies, and 24 found that
electromagnetic fields have no effect on the subjects. But seven did find
a measurable effect...in two of those studies with positive findings, even
the original authors have been unable to replicate the results; for the
next three, the results seem to be statistical artifacts; and for the
final two, the positive results are mutually inconsistent (one shows
improved mood with provocation, and the other shows worsened mood).*

At this time, it looks as if
hypersensitivity to EMFs is a psychosomatic disorder.* (For example, a research team in Norway (2007)
conducted tests using sixty-five pairs of sham and mobile phone radio
frequency (RF) exposures. "The increase in pain or discomfort in RF sessions
was 10.1 and in sham sessions 12.6 (P = 0.30). Changes in heart rate or
blood pressure were not related to the type of exposure (P: 0.30–0.88). The
study gave no evidence that RF fields from mobile phones may cause head pain
or discomfort or influence physiological variables. The most likely reason
for the symptoms is a nocebo effect.")

(Warning: studies on this subject
are published quite frequently. No study, no matter how large and well
designed can prove that any amount of EMF exposure is always safe for
everybody under any circumstances. But the preponderance of the evidence
as of spring 2008 is that there is no great danger to humans from using
cell phones, Wi-Fi, or living near power lines. update:
9/11/2010. More
results from the Interphone study have been published. The latest data
can be found in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
"CONCLUSIONS: Overall, no increase in risk of glioma [malignant brain
tumor] or meningioma [benign brain tumor] was observed with use of mobile
phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the
highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal
interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile
phones require further investigation.")

In 1997, The New England
Journal of Medicine published the results of the largest, most detailed study of
the relationship between EMFs and cancer ever done. Dr. Martha S. Linet, director of the
study, said: "We found no evidence that magnetic field levels in the home increased
the risk for childhood leukemia." The study took eight years and involved measuring
the exposure to magnetic fields generated by nearby power lines. A group of 638 children
under age 15 with acute lymphoblastic leukemia were compared to a group of 620 healthy
children. "The researchers measured magnetic fields in all the houses where the
children had lived for five years before the discovery of their cancer, as well as in the
homes where their mothers lived while pregnant." The study was criticized because it
is impossible to know exactly what the EMFs were at the times the mothers or their
children were exposed. All measurements must be done after the exposure has taken place
and assumptions must be made that the level of EMFs was not substantially different during
exposure. It is unlikely, however, anyone except the intellectual descendants of Nazi
doctor Joseph Mengele will ever do a control study on humans which systematically controls
exposure to EMFs from the moment of conception through early childhood.

A report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on
a study of 891 adults who used their cell phones between 1994 and 1998 found
that there was no increased risk of brain cancer associated with cell phone
use (Muscat 2000).Yet, many people believe that living near power lines or using cellular phones causes
cancer. Why? Some lawyers, the mass media and a scientifically illiterate public can take
the credit here.

Robert Pool
claims popular opinion has been aroused against EMFs by unscientific
sources such as The New Yorkermagazine (Pool 1990).
Paul Brodeur, called "a scientifically-ignorant writer" by physicist
Bob Park,
wrote three fearmongering and scientifically inept articles for The New
Yorker in the early 1990s and published them as
a book in 1993. The fear that
cell phones might be causing brain tumors was aroused by ABC's
"20/20" (October 1999) in a story focused on the claims of
Dr.
George Carlo, who, for the previous six years, ran the cell phone industry's
research program on the effects of radiation from cell phones. Gordon Bass
also relied heavily on Carlo for his alarmist piece in PC Computing,
"Is Your Cell Phone Killing You?" (November 30, 1999). Carlo
contradicts the conclusions of most other researchers in the field and
maintains that "we now have some direct evidence of possible harm from
cellular phones (italics added)." (Carlo also claims there is a causal
connection between Wi-Fi
and autism.) Contrast Carlo's view with the
following:

The epidemiological evidence for an association
between RF radiation and cancer is found to be weak and inconsistent, the
laboratory studies generally do not suggest that cell phone RF radiation has
genotoxic or epigenetic activity, and a cell phone RF radiation-cancer
connection is found to be physically implausible. Overall, the existing
evidence for a causal relationship between RF radiation from cell phones and
cancer is found to be weak to nonexistent (Moulder et al. 1999).

In a press release on October 20, 1999, the
FCC responded to
"20/20" and claimed that the "values of exposure reported by
ABC were well within that safety margin, and, therefore, there is no
indication of any immediate threat to human health from these phones."
Furthermore, the "20/20" story claimed that cell phone antennae
emit radiation into the brain, which is misleading. You might also say that
TVs and radios emit radiation into the brain if you put your head close
enough to those devices.

Cellular phones operate at the radio frequency (RF) part of the
electromagnetic spectrum. This is non-ionizing radiation. Other examples of
the non-ionizing part of the electromagnetic spectrum include AM and FM
radio waves, microwaves, and infrared waves from heat lamps. Unlike x-rays
and gamma rays (which are examples of ionizing radiation), radio waves have
too little energy to break the bonds that hold molecules (such as DNA) in
cells together. Similarly, since RF of this frequency contains relatively
low energy, it does not enter tissues. At very high levels of exposure, RF
can cause warming of tissues, much as a heat lamp does. The wavelength of
cell phone waves is about one foot and the frequency is approximately 800 to
900 MHz, although newer models may use higher frequencies up to 2,200 MHz.*

Similar arousal has been
evoked by talk show hosts such as Larry King, who introduced the nation to a widower who
claims that his wife's fatal brain tumor was caused by the EMF emitted from her cellular
phone. There is a lawsuit, of course. The evidence? The tumor was located near where she
held the phone to her ear. The major networks reported the story about the lawsuit and the
brain tumor and the cellular phone. Scientists were interviewed to give the story more
'depth' and credibility. However, no scientist has yet found a causal connection between
EMF and cancer, much less between cellular phones and brain tumors. So, a scientist who
has exposed existing tumors to EMF was interviewed. He reported that his research
indicates that tumors grow faster when exposed to EMF. Sales of cellular phones dropped
and stock in companies that manufacture them dropped. Because tumors exposed to EMF grow
more rapidly than tumors not so exposed does not indicate that EMF causes tumors,
cancerous or otherwise.

It is possible that cellular phones are causing brain tumors, but the likelihood is
small. The phones emit very low EMF levels and exposure to them is intermittent. It is
possible that a person with a brain tumor who uses a cellular phone is running a
significant risk that the tumor will grow faster than it otherwise would. As yet, however,
there is no evidence to support the view that there is a reasonable probability of either.

Lawyers representing claimants who blame their cancers on power lines cite a Swedish
study that found leukemia rates were 400% higher among children living near power lines.
Another study, done by the University of Southern California, found increased leukemia
rates in children living near power lines. According to Robert Pool,

The study examined 232 leukemia patients under the age of 10, and a group of
control subjects that were matched for age, sex, and race. The amount of EMF exposure for
each child was determined in a number of ways. No correlation was found between the
incidence of leukemia and the electric field exposure as measured by spot checking. An
insignificant correlation was noted between incidence of leukemia and levels of exposure
to magnetic fields, as measured by a continual measurement over a 24-hour period. A
significant correlation was seen between the EMF exposure, as measured by wire coding, and
an increased risk of leukemia. Those with the highest level of exposure had a 2.5-fold
greater risk of developing leukemia. It is not understood how these differences in
correlation depend on the way the EMFs are measured. It is possible that some types of EMF
exposure may lead to an increased risk of leukemia. On the other hand, measurements taken
by wire coding may be more sensitive. Further study is needed to see what factors are
being measured by the wire coding and not by the other methods. Until that is understood,
it is not clear if exposure to high levels of EMFs is related to an increased risk of
leukemia (Pool, 1991).

Also, Pool reports, "there have been numerous scientific reports of elevated
levels of leukemia in people who are exposed to high EMF levels on the job, such as
power-line repairmen and workers in aluminum smelters." Because there
have been and probably will continue to be a few studies that find some sort
of correlation between cancer and living by power lines,*
lawyers will always be able to find some evidence, however weak, to justify
filing a lawsuit. Over 201 challenges to utility projects were made in
1992 in which EMF was an issue. At least three suits have been filed in federal courts
claiming exposure to utility lines caused cancer (Pool, 1991). Utility companies
were scared. They poured billions of dollars into efforts to cut EMF exposure from
their power lines. Dr. Robert Adair, a physicist at Yale University, calls the reaction
"electrophobia" and says that it would take EMF levels 150 times higher than
those measured by the Swedish researchers to pose a hazard.

Lawyers can take their cases to court long before the scientific evidence
is anywhere near conclusive. And the standards of proof in a court of law
are appallingly much lower than those in science. "All it's going to take is one or two good hits and the sharks
will start circling," says Tom Ward, a Baltimore attorney who is suing Northeast
Utilities Co. and its Connecticut Light & Power Co. unit over an alleged EMF
cancer (Pool, 1991).
There is currently a great push to bury all power lines. Better safe than sorry? The cost
goes up twenty-fold to bury the lines. Then what? Lawyers claiming their clients' cancers
were caused by EMFed water? It was bad enough trying to sell a house with power lines
nearby when people cared about the ugliness of the view. But try to sell the same house
when people are afraid of getting cancer from the ugly lines! In any case, we will
have to bury our electrical wires even deeper than our power poles are high if we are to
make a significant difference in shielding us from the magnetic fields of power lines.

It is not very likely that the average person has anything to worry about from power
lines cell phones,
microwave
ovens, cordless phones, baby monitors, or Wi-Fi. Most of us do not get that close to power
lines to be significantly affected by their EMFs. Our exposure to them, even if they are nearby, is not direct, up close, and constant.
The energy emitted by cell phones, cordless phones, and baby monitors (10
milliwatts) is pretty weak. There is more EMF
exposure from radio and TV, and the wiring in our homes and the
electrical appliances we use, than from our cell phones or Wi-Fi. No one can avoid
electromagnetic radiation. It is everywhere. We are constantly exposed to it
from light, commercial radio and television transmissions, police 2-way transmissions,
walkie-talkies, etc. Furthermore, "while electrical fields
are easily screened, magnetic fields make their way unimpeded through most
substances" (Pool, 1990). In fact, it is curious that while fear of EMFs is on the
rise so is magnet therapy as a panacea and
source of positive energy for the healthful-minded New Ager.

Largest Study on Cell Phones and Cancer Finds No Link The biggest study ever to examine the possible connection between cell phones and cancer found no evidence of any link, suggesting that billions of people who are rarely more than a few inches from their phones have no special health concerns. The Danish study of more than 350,000 people concluded there was no difference in cancer rates between people who had used a cell phone for about a decade and those who did not.

Paris tackles radiation from the roofs "The Mayor of Paris has halted construction of additional cellular phone towers to the city’s roofs this week ... The decision to stop construction of the towers coincides with the end of the city’s contract with mobile service companies. Paris is the only city in France to have an agreement with cell phone companies that limits the exposure of electromagnetic waves to two volts per meter over 24 hours. The mayor has accused the French Telecom Federation of allowing exposures of up to 15 volts per meter, levels that some reports deem unhealthy."

For more on what "volts per meter"--the standard measurement of an electrical field--means click here. "For electric fields, the WHO studies of exposures up to 20,000 volts per meter had no significant effects. Studies of animal reproduction and development with electric field exposures up to 100,000 volts per meter showed no abnormalities."*

There is much disagreement about safety among the experts, but even the most cautious safety experts say that 6 volts per meter is safe. ("Six hundred studies done over the last 20 years have shown that electrical fields, up to 6 volts per meter and magnetic fields up to 64 nanoteslars are safe, and this should cause no biological interaction, even for very long term exposure." The average bedroom has an electrical field of about 5.5 volts per meter.*)

Mobile phone use not related to increased brain cancer risk The authors [of a new study] say that because there is no plausible biological mechanism for radio waves to damage our genes directly thereby causing cells to become cancerous, radio frequency exposure, they argue, if related to cancer is more likely to promote growth in an existing brain tumour. As such, the researchers say they would expect an increase in the number of diagnosed cases within five to 10 years of the introduction of mobile phones and for this increase to continue as mobile-phone use became more widespread. The 1998 to 2007 study period would therefore relate to the period 1990 to 2002 when mobile phone use in the UK increased from zero to 65% of households. The team, which included researchers from the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh and Drexel University, Philadelphia, found a small increase in the incidence of cancers in the temporal lobe of 0.6 cases per 100,000 people or 31 extra cases per year in a population of 52 million. Brain cancers of the parietal lobe, cerebrum and cerebellum in men actually fell slightly between 1998 and 2007. “Our research suggests that the increased and widespread use of mobile phones, which in some studies was associated to increased brain cancer risk, has not led to a noticeable increase in the incidence of brain cancer in England between 1998 and 2007,” said Dr de Vocht.

The Journal of the American Medical Association this week reported an NIH study of 47 healthy recruits injected with a glucose solution and then exposed for 50 min to radiation from a hand-held mobile phone. The side of the head the phone was held against was switched randomly. Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans exhibited changes associated with glucose metabolism on the side of the brain closest to the cell phone. This was said to demonstrate that exposure to cell phone radiation activates the brain, but "the clinical significance of this finding is unknown." Hmm, that's sort of limp. I am hopeful that someone will explain to me how the effects of metabolism are distinguished from changes in blood flow associated with thermoregulation. The only effect of microwave photons is to excite molecular vibrations (heat). Blood serves as a coolant to keep the temperature of the brain nearly constant in spite of cell phone radiation.

Massive revelation in iBurst tower battle Protestors handed
out flyers warning residents of Craigavon, outside of
Johannesburg, SA, that microwaves from a newly erected cellphone
tower would cause health problems. Soon, residents complained of
rashes, headaches, nausea, tinnitus, dry burning itchy skins,
gastric imbalances, and totally disrupted sleep patterns. The
only problem was that even when the tower was turned off for six
weeks (unbeknownst to the residents), the residents still
complained of their many ailments. The
nocebo effect in action.

No Link Between Cell Phones and [Brain] Cancer in Scandinavian
Study Researchers identified 59,984 cases of brain
tumor diagnosed between 1974 and 2003 out of a population of 16
million from four Scandinavian countries. Cell phones were first
introduced in these countries in the 1980s, but use did not
become widespread until the 1990s. No difference in brain cancer
rates was found after cell phone use became common.

More EMF Hysteria (Neurologica by Stephen Novella) "The Council of Europe (COE) has recently recommended that all WiFi (wireless phones, laptops, and other electronic devices) be banned from schools, sparking another round of this controversy....The report has been widely criticized, and with good reason. While the Council cites the precautionary principle as justification, there can be a fine line between appropriate precaution and unwarranted hysteria."

Putting the
EMFasis Back on the Scientific Consenus "This is about more
than just wifi of course — it’s a general epistemological
problem we encounter in trying to derive knowledge from science.
Science always leaves open the possibility that new data will be
uncovered that changes an answer we’d previously relied on — it
doesn’t provide the certainty we humans crave." The article
posts links to many sources in support of the consensus view
that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any
health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic
fields.